Wowk2007
| Wowk2007 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Wowk2007 |
| Author(s) | Maria T. Wowk |
| Title | Kitzinger’s feminist conversation analysis: critical observations |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Kitzinger, Conversation analysis, Ethnomethodology, Feminism, Incommensurability, Supplementation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2007 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 131–155 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10746-007-9051-z |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on feminism and the analysis of discourse. In particular, I examine Celia Kitzinger’s [(2000), Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10, 163–193 and (2002) Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.] claims to be engaged in ‘‘feminist conversation analysis.’’ This paper identifies susceptibilities in her arguments at both the theoretical level and the level of data analysis. My argument is that Kitzinger fails to appreciate the fact that her enterprise is basically a formal analytic one and that as such it is both radically different from, and incommensurate with, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA). Indeed her attempts to supplement feminism with EM/CA are unnecessary and counterproductive from an EM/CA position insofar as they crucially undermine its integrity.
Notes
See: Celia Kitzinger's response: 'Developing feminist conversation analysis: A response to Wowk', in: Human Studies, 2008, 31/2: 179-208.
